to this committee, i made it very clear in the transfer of -- in the transcripts what i did about those matters, and there was a range of places i touched on in terms of what it looked like, and i can provide that, but it was around the >> you told us about new evidence. but there was evidence available in 2006 that should of been pursued at that time. >> that may well be the case. it is a matter of regret.

>> you carried out the review and we want to know what the evidence was available to you when you carry out that review. you had bags full of evidence, is that right? >> yes. >> was all that evidence read by police officers? >> my understanding is that it was individually considered and reviewed. but other understanding is that it was by police officers. my understanding is that it is probably their investigation, not mine, but i cannot really account for that. it was not for my watch. -- on my watch. it was reviewed for relevance by counsel during the course of the admitting investigation.

that gave me a level of assurance that it had been looked at. >> the material available to you in 2006, did disclose the names of any one subject of phone hacking or any of the journal's concerned other than appeared on the indictment and trial subsequently held? >> there is a huge amount of paper. i cannot say. >> why not? >> because i do not know what the 11,000 pages say. >> surely that is an important question. >> you cannot possibly know the names on 11,000 pages. >> if you ask the police officers carrying out the investigation if there any other people who have not been mentioned in the trial or any of that journalist who had been involved in phone hacking?

[unintelligible] >> where across passages. >> let me be clear. but your question again. >> or any other victims of phone hacking or journalists involved in the fun hacking who have come to light in the material in your hands 2006 which was not disclosed that trial? >> the only aspect i was aware of in my memory is the name neville. and that may be the chief reporter. neville fellbeck. that is the only other name i can recall very that, too, is subject and is relevant to an evidential standard and was also

reviewed by the others. it was a written separation that just the name neville would not meet that threshold required to review it further. >> had any other reporters been interviewed? >> others will talk whether they have or have not, [unintelligible] >> pushing this back all of the parliament, are you aware that in fact some people whose names turned up in 2006 took out private investigations and discovered through that that the police had their names in their possession? >> i think that as a matter of public record and there is additional -- a judicial review under way and we will have to wait for that.

>> you do not sound like that dogged, determined investigator. there was a lack of cooperation [unintelligible] the dismissals is that that list of the conclusion? it is systematic. another example.

>> when your reminder it is that you are not going to come out was that an unfortunate choice of words? >> i just cannot think, i have many people working under me. i do not think you actually expect me what the responsibilities that i had, terrorism detection, i don't think you would want me examining every piece of paper. there's a command structure under me that allows that happen. >> most people what think that maybe someone should have gone there. >> i have not looked at examples of the material. >> if someone had looked, you would've known that there were 4000 names and that is something you did not know. new evidence. >> i've always said that the potentially hundreds of people

affected needed private investigators. >> when you said that this -- did you mean that your behavior [unintelligible] >> some of the decisions i have taken in terms of what i know now, if i knew then what i know now, they would have been different. at make it does look damaging. as i say, i am very happy to hold my hands up, but do not take that as a commission that i am responsible. >> do you feel that your behavior has damaged it? >> i do not think it is my behavior. in terms of where -- do i wish we could turn the clock back, yes i do.

>> but specifically on this point, you mentioned that trust that you felt was perhaps at risk because what has happened in a way. given what you have said and apologies you have made, have you considered your position as to whether or not you should continue in your present position, bearing in mind that you have accepted that this is a fundamental error in the way in which this inquiry was conducted? have you offered to resign? >> no, i have not offered to resign, and if you are suggesting that i should in my small part of it, then i think that that is unfair. >> i am just putting to you what we have been asked to put to you. >> i have not considered it. >> thank you. we will go to quick questions and then as we have other witnesses, mr. yates needs to be released to do and is other work as the head of counterterrorism. and not spend all morning with

us. can i go through quick questions for each member's? >> you said in answer to question put by several of my colleagues that you did not handle this investigation the same way as you had a previous one because you are just following the evidence. here you had a 11,000 pages and it was obvious, was it not, that there was more to it than the two people involved and said you did not follow the evidence in this case? >> felt the evidence had been followed. >> you knew that there were 11,000 pages sitting there. it was not just about the two people that were repeatedly mentioned peridots to people were involved in royal and national security. it was not on humdrum case. you have 11,000 pages per union dozens if not hundreds of other people were involved. it was national security implications. you will still having dinner with journalists afterwards.

is that right? >> what is the question? >> despite the fact that you had not yet conducted and thorough inquiry. >> i thought that i had. i am not happy now because i know things look different now in the light of the information. >> can i asked have you ever receive payments from anybody relating to the information that you have? >> it is an amazing question and i have never received any payments of that sort. >> at any of your officers received any payments of that sort that you know? >> i think it is highly probable. the allegations have been carefully investigated. an organization of 50,000 people, we have always said from time immemorial that some of

those people would be correct. it is an ongoing investigation. we do not comment on it now. >> were you aware of or in discussions with the media servers or anyone else where they're concerns about alienating "news of the world" are any other outlet? >> never appear you'll never find any records of such. -- never. you will never find any records of such. >> one of the major casualties of the scandal will be public confidence in the police more widely. do you think that new procedures need to be improved significantly? >> it is involved a lot time and effort, since 1996. i have been involved with it.

there's a very significant element to that. part of that is of vetting sensitive post. we will always accept that we can learn from you investigations. if there is corruption in the net, as i said is likely, we want to assure that they are still wet. investment becomes an issue around service of the post. -- sent to the post. -- sensitive posts. >> your the person who bought into the new evidence but looking at the scale of the wrongdoing which has been revealed, the spread it and the stars-like approach that has been taken, i do think the public should feel about this? >> i think they should be

feeling extremely reassured that the met has invested in a new investigation in terms of how they feel now, was the question, and they should be reassured that a new investigation under different command structure with significant resources attached to it is following the evidence, as they have now seen. and i cannot repeat that often enough. >> can i just put it on records, i do not myself believe for one moment that you received any payment from filburn " news international." last night, one of your former colleagues describe you as a very competent officer. then he went on to say when he was being questioned about to position, he said, you will have to make -- he will have to make his own decision on whether he feels his position is untenable.

do you really feel, mr. yates, that you can continue in your position? >> yes, i do. >> after all that has happened, the confidence with the public and the met? >> the right thing in this case was to hold my hands up about the regret that i feel. i do feel about that about the way things were handled. that is not a resignation matter in my view. >> the ddp consulted about the initial advice is now working for "news international." on reflection, what share of responsibility to yet they should be borne by the cpx for failing to fully investigate?

>> i think that there is some form of flexibility. i've always said and i will say again the difficulties for others, so there is some collective responsibility. operation decisions of for us. -- are for us. it is a collective responsibility. >> you said that the question of repressed the brooks -- rebecca brooks'future is a matter for conscience. how was your conscience? >> i have accepted the areas where we could do better. my conscience is clear in that i have respect -- expressed regrets for that. if you cannot be allowed to express regrets and make money -- some states, it will be a sad state of affairs. >> was a mistake to talk about

the victim's commit given into except you did not carry out the review? >> it gave back to the little of buys and what we could approve. it is a doll semantic point. >> do you think it was right to be so clear and categorical when actually you could not possibly have known because you have not reviewed all of the evidence? >> i just went with the legal it buys. -- advise. >> what was your inquiry for? what was the previous inquiry? >> that is a matter for the new inquiry answer. the inquiry in shape to make it manageable in the context that was happening at the time. i think that as a matter for them to answer.

>> in terms of the victims, the last time you hear, specifically concerning mr. bryant, have all the victims as far sure where have been contacted? in respect to the evidence you give us last time, and you talked about the mobile phone companies being contacted. i'm not sure if bajaur where they get evidence to us and they told me they received no instructions. not about the current operation, but when you were conducting it. >> there is a range of correspondence with the fund companies. in retrospect, it may have not been followed through in the way it should have been done. i know one company absolutely follows the instructions to the latter. and others did not. that is a matter that needs to be reviewed. >> whenever we ask you to come give evidence, you do turn up and give evidence. it is the view of the committee that your evidence today is unconvincing.

and there are more questions to be asked about what happened when you conducted this review you may well be hearing from us again with regard to this matter. we are very grateful that you have come today. if i could summarize, your apology is to the victims, to the family of many, and all the others. your policy is to this committee and for any perceived damage there is to the metropolitan police. is that right? >> that is right. >> could i call mr. peter clark?

spread the inquiry with news international because of the cooperation more broadly. and you've heard concert -- conversations about this is your. following the arrest, a large enough amount of information was seized. i've been told that it amounted to 11,000 pages. "news international" was offering no an investigation. the only avenue for further investigation would of been to that material per week considered an exhaustive analysis of this material paired with decided against it for the following reasons. >> who said that? >> me in my fellow investigators.

>> or the other people you're talking to? >> the hierarchy of the commander and a range of other colleagues who are actually there. >> proceed. >> given the wider context of counter-terrorism with immediate threats to the british public, involving gross breaches of privacy but no apparent threat of physical harm to the public, i could not justify the huge expense of resources of a protected period. a team of officers were detailed to examine the documents and identify potential victims were there might be security concerns. the second reason why we did not do a full analysis -- the original objectives could be achieved a the following measures. first of all, a high profile prosecution and imprisonment of

the senior journalist of a national newspaper. secondly, collaboration with the mobile phone industry to prevent such invasions of privacy in the future. and briefing the government, including the home office and cabinet office, designed to alert them to the activity and assure national security concerns could be addressed. and there was also liaison information with the commissioner's office. there'd been close information -- cooperation with my office and the mobile phone industry throughout the investigation. there were certain categories of potential victims and there were informing others to see if they wanted to contact police. i've since learned that the strategy did not work as intended. as the committee has learned. that as a matter of profound regret. it is utterly regrettable that as a result of the decision not

to conduct a detailed analysis of the material seized, attack and it projects a cacophony of victims that i did not note did not receive the support that they deserved. i refer to the victims of a crime. and the accounts of the investigation would not be all -- without reference to counter- terrorism at the time did in 2002, there have been a steady rise in the number of terrorist plots against the uk. london had been attacked in 2005 and is it given rise to the largest investigation ever carried out in the uk. by early 2006, we were investigating transatlantic airlines in mid flight. many were arrested in 2006, the day after the reporters. the anti-terrorist branch had more than 70 live investigations carried the reality was that some of these were not being investigated because we did not have the staff to do so. i have been asked whether we

could have returned to the on access to material after the arrest. the answer quite simply is no. by december we were embroiled in a murder and london and plots in haymarket and class code. -- glascow. in 2007, will lead to the conviction of dozens of people for terrorism. there were cases where there had already been conditions and there was no certainty of the convictions giving the nature of legislation in the circumstances. i can all longer speak to the metropolitan peace the less police force. i think they're actually looking forward to set out in detail the forthcoming in judgment in a calm forensic environment, the integrity of

objectivity, and the skill with which they went about their jobs in 2006. if at any time news international could have of arden some meaningful cooperation instead of prevarication and what we now know to be lies, we would not be here today. >> could i ask, did you think of issuing a press statement or released to the media saying that news international was not cooperating? >> at what stage? >> at any stage. >> i could not do that in and dance of the court case in 2007. >> after that period? >> i do not think that i did, now. >> and regret you have expressed in your statement, you're very helpful statement today, is to? to whom are you regretting? are you apologizing to the victims? are you saying you just regret

the fact that you have not carried out -- who is that regret toward? >> it has to be the victims of a crime, it always is. because of the strategy we put in place in the last week of august 2006 has not operated as intended, clearly there are people who it found that they have been the victims of hacking. obviously most importantly, the victims of crime. they have found some of the most distressing things about what was happening to their private lives and the invasion of their privacy. >> for the record, you have had no hospitality given to you or it in connection whatsoever with news international? >> during my time of serving in the metropolitan police, there were occasionally organized by the directors of public affairs meetings with the crime reporters association, print and

broadcast, there were occasions certainly on which i would meet groups of reporters and usually broadcast media and other weeks print media? >> any private meetings? >> note. -- no. >> i find your evidence today hard to excess, particularly with the parameters that might explain water to things. in the normal course of policing, if an offense is discovered and discovered, they will investigate the further offense. if you find someone [unintelligible] >> it is highly different categories. the only thing you could

possibly allowing this to would be an enormous fall were you focus the investigation in the early stage. you focus on trying to prove those defenses. and you do put parameters around investigations. it is a completely normal investigative process. it the first indication was that there was something within the royal household. that is what we will investigate. >> did you suspect that there were other journalists involved for smart >> yes, which is why we proceeded as far as we could. >> you've told us that one of the reasons why you did not choose to investigate further is that your concern that victims would continue to be victimized. that the and fences were investigated. >> what i was trying to say there was a summit if we tried to mount an investigation into every potential victim which was beginning to emerge from our

work with the phone companies, that could have taken months or potentially even years to bring to the point where we could bring prosecution. >> what they continue to be victimized if the police found out it was victimizing? >> we did not know the full scope of how many people were being victimized. it was clearly water than the initial parameters of the investigation. if we tried to conduct a full investigation to find out the full brunt of it, it could take potentially months. if we cannot possibly start going to victims in advance of an arrest phase because clearly that would become public knowledge sooner or later, bearing in mind the nature of some of the victims. if they have become public knowledge, clearly those who were responsible could well have destroyed or lost evidence. >> what i'm saying here is that

we have let this go on for months, if it is completely unacceptable breach of individual privacy would continue. and that was not the right thing to do. we can all have the benefit of hindsight, but what does emerge sense, that was at catastrophic decision that you took. it allowed this network of spying and corruption to continue. untouched. >> i would have to disagree with that. as i said, the original objective -- >> if you it done as early we would not have this enquirer televised if you had done this earlier, we would not have this inquiry. >> to stop what the illicit access to people. as far as i am aware, by and large, after 2006, because of our work with the mobile phone company in getting the protective security arrangements

around voicemails changed, plus now hacking no longer continue. >> when the mobile phone companies came, they were very critical of the metropolitan police. there were waiting to inform the victims. and you never told them to inform the victims. >> two different things here, sir. we're talking about the protective measures to stop the voicemail hacking, then i believe they were entirely successful. >> but the victims. >> have already said that the victim strategy did not work as intended. that is a matter of great regret. >> you cannot take an exhaustive analysis of the material seized. does that mean it was not read? >> officers with the tail. -- were detailed, one to look

for evidence relevant to the charges. the second objective is to make sure that obligations in terms of disclosure under the criminal procedures investigation at work to fill. that was done by police officers and then looked at by counsel. and then third, the potential victims. >> so all the material was read. >> i cannot say that all material or is red. it was a manual search at that time. i cannot be absolutely certain. i was not there looking over other people soldiers. the-shoulders -- other people's shoulders. >> will not ask your team that they had read all the documents before releasing the ball?

>> not necessarily. >> even though some of those names are very important people? >> those immediately jumped out were notified. >> i think the question being put to you, in that study of the material, did you find the names of other victims of hacking and other journalists who were involved in the hacking, apart from those on the indictment? did you find victims of crime? >> i was certainly not aware of the victims of crime. >> other names of victims? >> there other people that probably had been, and we can only tell if someone had been a victim of hacking from the technical data from the mobile phone company. if they told us that somebody's

voice mouth had been access, then they were informed. yes. >> we're dealing with a complex case, and you're faced with an individual who will not cooperate, would not make a -- what that not make you suspicious that they had something to hide? >> not only suspicious, but be certain that they had something to hide. i think has been explained many times before this committee that there was correspondence edited to between us and news international pared the letters that were sent from the metropolitan police were put together with the crown prosecution service. i know that the people were

looking at this were very frustrated at finding what they thought was a legal impasse. >> or they subjected to an exhaustive analysis, the photographs? >> given the complete lack of cooperation from news international, the only way to get into this was an exhaustive analysis of all that material. i've already explained that because of the range of other life-threatening activities going on at the time in terms of terrorist attacks, i took the decision that this did not justified. >> i'm sure that you can appreciate that your willingness but the prosecution happen. >> it is a banal point, but would you expect criminals to investigate -- cooperate with the police? of course you do not. i do not mean to be flippant. this is the global organization

with access to the best legal advice. in my view, deliberately trying to thwart a criminal investigation. >> you think that news international may have a case? >> i am correct -- i am sure that i cannot say. i'm sure they were acting on instructions. >> could you see that in the news international journalists were there? >> could you repeat that please? >> surely you could have looked in the 11,000 pages to see if there were the names of any other news international journalists, and then use that information to go further? >> it is possible. i am not sure that skimming 11,000 pages is an exercise that can be done.

to the best of my knowledge, i did not know that mr. bryant had been hacked. >> why did not do anything when it emerged that gordon taylor had been given a pay off by news international? >> bayh then i have retired from the police service. >> mr. clarke, any evidence that you gave, why did not do it and exhaustive search of an example of the evidence? >> just trying to reflect on that. a simple question and no simple answer. if you like me to consider why i did not do part of the job, either you do the job properly or you do not do it at all. i consider the decision at the time was person -- perfectly

reasonable. i had to weigh up the balance between privacy. >> what you've done that job better with a sample of the evidence that you had? >> i cannot say. it is pure speculation. >> you say that the law stop you because you're up against in international organization. if a lot does not allow fishing expeditions, but it would of supported you if you had obtained sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable suspicion, if you have been able to obtain access and no amount of lawyers with unable to stop you for the question is, there were 11,000 pages sitting not properly

reviewed. i suggest they could have been reviewed and should of been reviewed and what of disclosed evidence that would allow the police to obtain legal access to the news international and maybe others. >> that is a degree of speculation. i've already explained the reason why i made the decision not to have them reviewed at the time. >> according to the guardian, letters of the royal family, you were tasked with protection ultimately. this is a matter of relating to royal protection as ours in new. when not it had been an obvious thing to do to investigate the matter for the police? >> is that i was tasked with royalty protection ultimately. >> i thought you told the committee that you are eventually test to investigate

this matter because you have oversight over royal. >> know. i think you're referring to the fact that i was commander of the royal protection department back before. i then i have responsibility then. >> you should not done the research that he suggests. >> what if given new legal grounds to obtain access? >> i do not know if it would reveal further evidence. we did not carry out the exercise. >> did you at any time speak to the dpp? >> i did not. >> that no contact. who sought the legal advice? >> the senior investigating officer working with a special division. that would ban the detective

chief superintendent. >> you know for a fact that they did consult the dpp? >> i doubt the dpp was personally involved. >> we have a letter from them saying that they have oversight on this. >> i think if been very straight with this committee. i think the error was drawing the boundaries are too narrowly. i suspect that you agreed that with hindsight it could have been broader. we might of been able to do even more work. my question is actually, in 2006, the information allowed

command papers to parliament. [unintelligible] from his perspective, this was a major issue. it goes on -- details of a huge range of cases. did that not start and the alarms that you had evidence and you knew that this was a high priority, did that night mickey think it should be looked into it together? >> in 2006, i was unaware of those reports. i was focused on terrorism issues. >> should someone else had been aware of this and brought them together? >> someone else probably should have.

>> was there a feeling [unintelligible] >> i cannot agree with that. >> you've described this as a global organization, a large media outlet in what it can do, and it made no difference whatsoever? >> if there been any feeling of the kind you describe, it would been unlikely that office would on an unannounced to the news international building and face the sort of hostility and obstruction that they gave. >> could you speak up? >> [unintelligible] this hostility and obstruction,

surely if anything, that could be a discouragement knowing that dogs of war to be viewed without hesitation grid to mark -- without hesitation? >> it might make them more determined rather than less. >> you said that you socialized with reporters, and no one would have suspected otherwise. it was perfectly above board. socializing with monsignor people at news international, would that be true about the colleagues? >> can i speak for what they did. >> you're not aware one way or the other. >> no, i was not. >> to be helpful to understand the scale of your investigation.

where did it right in your day- to-day work? was your investigation the only investigation you were conducting at the time? >> no, under my underside -- oversight there were 70 investigations. >> award it right in terms of priority? >> you cannot place are right on it. >> up but third, middle third? >> it certainly would not compete with any other investigation of the safety of the public. it depended on what the stage of the investigation was at. i am not being offered. -- awkward. we kept it very tight and i would say there were 10 to a

dozen varied when it came to the arrest and search, we aren't officers from other specialties, and on the day of the searches and arrests, there were as many as 60. >> about 10 to 11 officers working day today, supported by additional officers at various times. and what situation of that investigation from beginning to end? >> beginning his december 2005, until the convictions which i believe to be in january 2007. >> do you feel that the message in your getting from the command structure was that you should not be prioritizing this investigation in the context of all the other terrorist-related activities you were involved in? >> absolutely not. it was my decision. >> what troubles most of us is

the 11,000 pages of material for in the end best to get your -- and the investigator. -- any investigator. is there anyway that you could review the material and screen out any other connections? that is what we do not understand. [unintelligible] this was a mine field that got everyone's attention. >> absolutely. it is a mistake to think that we

were solely focused on the two reporters. i meant extract from this morning tyrian we were trying to find any other conspirators. if the evidence would of been forthcoming, we would have followed it. >> [unintelligible] it must have been there. >> it was there in the material. to say we did not do an exhaustive met -- analysis -- >> was there some purpose by which it was reviewed with you could not see any other people? i cannot figure out the names are coming up, people go into that material, again and again. >> i think i am right in saying that in the initial stages, about 28 people were actually informed that they were

potentially being the victims of hacking as a result of the initial review of that. i agree, the analysis of 11,000 pages was not comprehensive. >> final question. >> i understand you made a very clear statement of what your priorities were when conducting terrorism. and a lower order of putting the administrative tasks after it was there any consideration given to stripping out the non- terrorism related aspects of your command? putting resources and responsibilities to other parts of the crime director r. whatever? >> it was not really business for the anti-terrorism branch.

it came to was as a national security issue. forgive me, but could i pass the investigation on to somebody else? i think it is a realistic point, and i thought about it and it is reflected in the decision lots at the time. of the previous two years, i'd arctic and stripping out parts of

devote offices to this? at the judgment? i did not make it. >> in your answer, where is it? they give this to you in order to give you the maximum rate soars. there was the obvious benefit of hindsight. might it not be enough? >> i do not see where i could have put it to. i think it is quite sufficient over the past few years. >> they put it as their responsibility. quit>> amash to push up.

>> we remain puzzled at the time in the investigation. this was not properly analyzed for what ever reason. he came right at the stop. you regret that certain things were not done. you seem to be quite defensive. you say you have done the best thing. >> the regret is quite simply that people who have suffered enough already are being the victims of a crime and now finds that because of the activities of the news of the world, that their suffering has been increased.

as a result, part to the strategy appeared to have worked >> had that words coming you would have been very satisfied? >> i would have been satisfied with the inquiry we conducted. i cannot be happy that they turned that it contained important affirmation. >> we got that message. thank you very much. >> could we call our next witness? >> speaking he wished.

you have not reply to this letter. this evidence is replied. >> can i clarify that? a gives the impression that i completely blank. is built into your office. >> there is a shorter version. >> i will stop and cleared out of the way if i may. your relationship. i'm surprised want to ask about

it. when to start negotiations and become an employee? >> i was approached by several newspapers. that is something i always wanted to do. there is the aspiration. it turned out to be punishable. i chose to go the time. there is an agreement. and i retired on paper. it'll be delighted thousand eight. >> were there no alarm bells ringing? you have action been investigated by news international.

>> you knew exactly what was happening with regard to the investigation. he knew there items and not been properly looked into. the not occur to you that this was not the best decision and that you should go to the very people you were investigation? we have now heard that they were most uncooperative in respect of the investigation that was being conducted. >> ps. >> it was in the front page. there is no level.

i did not know them. anything in the back pocket is unfounded. you heard it from other ones. >> she continued to write this? >> there are investigations. i satisfy the should continue?

>> it is public. you are in a select committee. >> i can show it to you. in descending that i think all parties should be aligned to. both parties are private. >> yet to be suspended or dismissed. >> e r a voluntary part of this decision. had it cross your mind that each and are really be involved? >> it is more appropriate when a

contract it together. i want to have that as a private conversation. it is right that you continue to have private dinners in meetings with news international. >> i put it there. they are not the only people. i had the responsibility for the media. it was consistent. with any suggestion or hints rubbish.iit, wher eit is i think i put this in the public domain.

>> would you raise the concerns of this. >> would you have this? you have colleagues. were you not cooperating? >> i will have to check the dates. one other thing of course is that they had regular contact, they did. there were corporative and helped us. it helped us. he wouldn't have a relationship with other people as well. it is strange.

they wear away at that they were being investigated -- they were being aware that they were being investigated. >> one thing was the timing. my recollection is that it is professional. it is something on the table. i do not remember when it went in. there were allegations said there is some bonds.

they were basically not there. would you like to put this on the record? >> these are all suggestions there was the stock english. >> i have not got a clue. i do not know. i really do not know. the sec can point -- the second point around motives, we have already heard. it was unethical.

how could i ever have stopped in live investigation? if i have ever done that, it would have been like a rash. what about the people you were investigating. but i'm not investigating. >> said there had been interventions. they happened before. that is in a poor part to make. thedo you have any ideas how it

looks? there could be evidence as a result of that. i cannot see anything in the background for the lines are being crossed. it was employed. fear was the publication. -- that was the publication. >> we are trying to understand why it was there.

" this decision was made that we all think it is incorrect. you were going ahead. i want to understand why. here is the problem. >> they were wondering why there was not pressure. >> i want to understand why this opposition was made. he might be interested. do you understand why everybody is there? they have all these other connections. >> do not beat me up. i am saying to exactly what my

aspirations are. i saw this as an opportunity for a secretariat. there is nothing more absolute than that. you have heard from people and the great decisions. they were understanding decisions that were made. i believe responsibility stops at my door. they have been very clear that on a day-to-day basis you is investigating. my command will be good. >> do you know about these things? >> of the rules are very clear. >> that is what it was. >> it is the interaction you

had. >> you will find when it is exposed. >> you -- what happened was journalists. that is not necessarily improper. he were having dinner with journalists, were you not? they were being investigated. >> it is up in my issues. we have to go back to the timeline. i cannot remember the time of when it have been in relation to was going on. i agree that what you are

saying. there is no way that i would ever discourage anything from anyone. >> you say that you never discloses. you have made a judgment call. this is correct. >> you think that is the correct form of action? it is to say let's not do that. let's make some excuses. i discussed that with a senior colleague. this is the director of communications. >> what is his name? >> i do not know why you laugh.

it is astonishing. all i am sure i can say to you is this. whenever had a conversation that a compromise investigation. can you not discuss these tactics in general? it is impossible for you to do that. you are aware of police tactics. >> you are not aware of police tactics. there is absolutely no way. that is the purpose of that meeting. this is ridiculous. >> thank you.

they go there. some people want this. this is one of them. what do you mean? >> >> we will just go ahead. the others were in charge. he had in 2000. >> we kept that. then people say it is a general strategy. there are all sorts of increase. what would you prefer their

responsibility? there were a different part of the stable. at times that is a big outfit. famous come to the conclusion pen. they would have the overall responsibility. it would not come. >> he would have heard that this was not the tone. they have this reputation as an investigator. he got on with it. he kept his cards very close to

his chest. there were below them. that dangerous men. he did not want him on the bench. and not quite sure who else i could have gone too. they performed to the best of their ability. >> you have made their own judgment on that. >> thank you. >> thank you. i feel a little bit like i have fallen through the rabbit hole. you said that in the original investigation, you noticed no stone was left unturned. we wonder why there was a decision not to have exhausted

analysis of this. there is no assessment of any additional victims. can you explain your role in that position and your assessment? >> i will pick of the mood of the committee. i had no involvement in that decision. i think they also had the evidence. they with their within the parameters. >> been made the decision himself. >> he came to have meetings with you. he would have discussed whether he was there to continue it.

you have no recollection of discussing this. >> you are right. there are general terms about it. they will be working very close. on the basis of the briefings, i will take the judgments and decisions. he would explain exactly what his thinking was. >> you cannot remember him? >> you were aware he is conducting this investigation? >> he was thinking about the priority level. >> they have come with me with

what he saw i would imagine i would endorse it. >> you have no thoughts of your own? >> i would have endorsed what he said. >> we need to hurry. >> what do you paint this to be? -- what would you suggest this to be? >> you do not believe to review anything more. >> they are up here.

and do you think it is a good idea? >> when you look back now, this is absolutely awful. people are going through the pain. they were just appalling. one thing they announced recently is that we must have a judge. this is its. >> why did you say this? there are these allegations. >> i do not remember it. d remember what you said? >> they have it through this initial investigation.

>> they have this. there are allegations of this. we see this. there is no investigation.

>> it was not that long. >> everything is possible. it was done. i was upset by that. illus very light. we have more time to do it. we did not have that at the time. he decided he was frustrating. >> is was a disaster.

he went to prison. >> you do not think it was a disaster? nothing came from it. it was given to this review. >> they reviewed it. >> i do not know. this is what it is. she is trying to put it around. they were proportionate. >> do you have a reason to apologize? >> i want to make sure -- where i stand, i am apologizing that they are sending i have done wrong. i want to know what it is that people have done wrong.

let me ask about the new number. it is under the heading. they use the investigation. you wrote my heart sank when those dealing with a acquisition. we put our best detectives on the case and let no stone unturned.

they have this can invite kids see this, they have this. they have been investigated. >> when it was written, it is on the basis of this. i member there was a command. he came to my office. he came to new the number. it is something in the region of

eight or nine. there were three groups. it was ostensibly a contact list. they were not expecting that from anyone. there were numbers of people. the second list was a short-term number. my recollection was that there could have been pin numbers. thirdld've been a category. they have a pin number and telephone number. my understanding was that we have gone from a long list of contact numbers down to a list of people for which they can do.

this is what was written in 2009. there are other individuals that have been hacked. >> they have been attacked. >> we are not giving the names. >> they do this. >> i can only member and a handful of people. they were prosecutors. >> doesn't come as a surprise to

year to have these documents? it was a subject to compensation. that was never investigated. >> when were the others investigated? >> there was evidence parity as for information on the journalists. that is what they said a few months ago. he was the name? by the second member. >> -- who was the name? >> i do not remember. >> who were the names? where did it come from? >> of shine to explain to you. i dish remember him coming in. he said these were the names.

it was not until later that i even remember that. there were the premises and other sources can it goes there. >> i hope you can help us. >> this is kind of factual. people had a similar one. they did talk to the news international. it is not done there. it is incorrect? >> hebbian speculate at around

all you want. you have -- you can speculate. and motivate it into outcome. they know it. they have it. >> that is what they want. >> >> i am very conscious that this session will be watched by victims of hacking. much of the evidence is so familiar. i wonder if you would accept the

fact that is something you but predict if you except that fact? is there something you like to say? >> that is a matter absolute regret. >> would you like to apologize now? >> i do apologize. thank you. >> did you ever receive payment? >> lots of people did this. >> that is not fair.

>> they are paying with additional comments. >> members of the committee are allowed to ask any questions a. wyss -- questions they wish. it is in the public domain. >> >> how many officers and stab did you have on this 2006 investigation? >> how many was its? >> i cannot remember. >> they have this evidence. i think it speaks for itself.

>> thank you. can we have our final witness? >> can we go straight to our next witness? could i stop with an apology for keeping you waiting? there we are. we will not as cute about operational matters. we know you are very sensitive. you are in the middle of an

investigation. we appreciate the fact that you come here. do tell us that there is a thorough inquiry going on headed by you. it is what the processes. >> i am very happy to do so. i'm very conscious that all of the are relying on this. it is something they have provided. let me set the record straight. i think this is on the website. i do not see that. it is owned by someone had complained that they had leaked information. i have now established that it was the work of a journalist who is putting this together. they have gone in public record

as saying it is just. speculative journalism. >> matters are being cleaned. that document is a compilation. it did not come from us. >> thank you. i do not want you to rely on that. >> i am most grateful. >> please tell us why this inquiry was set out. >> i think the catalyst was the civilize action. there was a vast amount of disclosure. they did it in connection. they came across the 3 e-mails. that is in the public domain.

that is in january. bishop of there is another one. that was the catalyst. this is where i am. they set up an inquiry. there is documentation in the administration. >> how many full-time officers to you have? >> here are the resources. a.q. before a specific operational basis. we can find that we do not need as many as that.

i am not sure whether you just came in. we are not going to go back over everything that has happened. one of the concerns that the documents that were originally seen were reviewed by him. they have all the original materials. they can have additional material. they are reviewing that evidence. they are investigating in a thorough way. >> it to be helpful if i look at our approach.

>> he thought long and hard about this. there are difficulties that he gets into. they have a very pragmatic approach. they have a number of people. they have this. it is the same way. there are other people who have had their messages listen to.

the person whose messages there are there. they have given a commitment. there are various people names there. they have their first names and second names. the of undertaken each one. as we do that, we work our way through that. it makes sense of numbers and connections. we showed them that. there are other people.

is there a concern? between them, a bad 120 victims. should they inform their customers that they have been hacked? should they wait for them to do so? they are helping us compiling its. only one company will have that. the other phone companies are

coming to it. i think he may have been under the impression. another once have taken responsibility. >> the names are coming out of public demand appear i-- demand. >> they may have sold this to journalists. is this under your purview as well? >> it will all come down to my purview. >> see that as whether he had been hacked.

he agreed. people write to you. they say yes or no. >> when we took over the job, we have to get there in reply the people. they have potential victims. there is something like five center. there is about 70.

>> can clarify? to have all the resources you need? >> we have the commission. they have this. you have the resources. there is no thing. >> is costly under review. it is constantly under review. there is another organization is 60,000 plus people.

>> payments are there. they have this by the metropolitan commissioner. they will decide how these allegations of the investigated. >> that is not quite as it happens. on the 20th of june, we were alerted to the fact that there were allegations. it is as a consequence of that.

we made a formal referral. these were the agreements. it remained until with me. >> if there is an investigation, it is illegal. it has to be referred to.

my question is, that has been made? >> there are other issues. >> there are investigations. >> thank you. >> to let this go. how quickly do you think this could really get going?

>> it is difficult to put a time scale on this. i think there is probably a limited amount. there are materials that are in the public demands. it is difficult. this is very start to take evidence. >> t think delay has to be weeks, months, years? >> i can tell your that it dropped over. there were charges. they would not have been for them. >> they are announcing the names of the head of it. >> into suspended.

-- it was suspended. >> exactly. we are trying to get to the bottom of it. it was last week. the previous ones where there. you are not dealing with that at all? >> it was used in the convictions.

>> they think it is all the increase. >> they contain disinformation. >> the last one i wanted to ask you is how do you support it? >> i think when they started, it was through lawyers. it was difficult. forgive me if i am offending anyone. they have amounts of complexity. it was difficult.

my colleagues talk about journalistic privilege and how that can create problems. they have developed it. i in meetings to deal with this. subsequent, they have been much better. it is not sometimes daily. it is a different feel. >> they are dealing with it. >> i think they are serious indeed. all the people are contacted.

>> they have the scope of the investigation. >> we talk about the news international. there are other media organizations. >> we have do start or restart. we start to do this with the news of the world. >> 1d expect to finish? >> -- what do you expect to finish? >> it depends emollient cover along the way. >> we will investigate these matters? >> i am. >> thank you. >> you talked about in these

investigations. hal is a possible the civil action can do this information? -- how is it possible that civil action can do this information? >> they asked this. >> i know what you are saying. this is the way it was. there are people out there. they feel badly about this. they continue their actions. finally, they do this. this is a perfect time. there have been a number of journalists and others that can

this. they have kept this appointment. baking keep it. -- they can keep it. there are other things. there are demands of reporting that is going on. now it is a time to do this. there is this holding. in >> he is in touch. >> i presume you welcome any hope. >> clearly people are.

>> are you surprised with what you have made? >> it's clear that people are withholding evidence from coming out. could it not be that offices are leaking this information rather than media outlets already have it? >> some can be accused of that. of thepily confident speculation around 7/7 bombings,

we did not know that they were contained within our material. >> you did say that the reopening have been prompted by the disclosure of the civil action. i recalled john yates telling us that it was related to the "news of the world" giving further evidence. which of those is it? >> it is both. that evidence was given in a civil action, and that presumably realize that it would have to come to us. >> can ask your question that mr. clarke was not able that answer because he had retard? in 2009, when "news of the world" had given information about gordon taylor, why did that not prompt you to reopen the issue?

>> i cannot answer that. i have not looked back. i have not analyzed that. >> [unintelligible] you could be looking at other sections. >> after any charges, we worked with the cpx and they will decide in the course if it came to that. i answer that will not confine themselves to one possibility. the less i am sure they will not confine themselves to one possibility. >> the evidence received from

commissioner yates was on the 20th of july, 2009 he had the 11,000 documents. was that not the useful format? >> i do not have that knowledge. it was complete and mistakes were made. as laborious as a maybe, but as as it may become a people inquiring about whether they were victims, had to be republish sure -- completely reassured that we had a complete and accurate picture. so had gone through all of this material. >> they did not have a complete list of victims at that time.

you now have a complete list of all victims from the pre-january 11 thousand documents and the post-january documents. >> we have now put on to a database all of that material seized in 2005 and 2006. >> but up but -- what about the recent disclosures from news international? >> how many have been contacted and how many are left? >> what i describe the scale of the tasks, a thing or something like 3817 names and others in the data base. another 5000 telephone numbers and other mobile numbers. we have started as well as other

people that we have seen. i have forgotten how many we have. bear with me. sorry, i referred to the person behind me. he tells me 170 people have been informed. >> at 2000 names, 5000 land mines, and 4000 of oz, 170 have been contacted. a lot more work to be done. >> there is a lot more work to be done. i can see how that looks. i've explained the months that

it took to get to there. they are distracted by several actions and other things. >> it seems to be not critical at all. >> [unintelligible] 1 review led to a huge number of publications which have shown in using illegal services. other newspapers as well. are you prepared to look beyond news international if that is where the evidence goes? >> absolutely. >> what damage has been done? how much damage has been done to the met by all this? >> it is everyone's analysis that there has been damaged.

and i do not doubt that they do not get this right, there will continue to be damage. have an excellent team working tirelessly to get this right. i hope i do not have to come back here and explain why we failed. >> it is important at the commissioner will make a statement tomorrow in the guardian. i've just received a letter from him concerning his intentions or plans to do so. do you know anything about this? >> we have no idea about this. i think it is fair to say i've never seen an inquiry quite like this. some of this is accurate and some of it is completely speculative. >> you're confident that this will be a thorough inquiry. and it will help us to process

the matter. >> i hope so. >> thank you so much. you may be contacted in five days. thank you very much for coming in. point of order. thank you. the record is opened. >> in a few moments, congressional leaders speak with reporters about the ongoing negotiations on federal spending and the debt ceiling. you'll hear from house speaker john boehner, senate majority leader harry reid, and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. in a half-hour, a discussion of how the 14th amendment to the constitution may affect those debt ceiling discussions. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke presents a semi-annual monetary policy report to congress tomorrow morning. live coverage from the house financial services committee is on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern.

>> now is the time to deal with these issues. if not now, when? >> the debt limit is the legal limit on borrowing by the federal government, and since 1962, has been raised to 74 times for the last time in february 2010. learn more and follow the process of raising the debt ceiling on line with the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share -- it is washington your way. as congressional leaders were preparing to meet again with president obama this afternoon on the debt and deficit, house speaker john boehner said the debt limit increases is federal -- president obama's problem and the president should show it -- should suggest a plan that will pass in congress. >> past congresses have spent too much.

we look at the federal takeover of our health care, over $1 trillion. the president's failed stimulus plan, $1.2 trillion with interest. garden variety of government, non-defense discretionary, jumps 24% in two years, an unparalleled spending spree that has helped run this economy into the ditch, leaving millions of unemployed. and the president's answer? let's raise taxes on job creators. mr. president, the american people do not want that. mr. president, that will not work. aside tax increases on job creators, we have seen no real plan out of the president. as the head of the congressional budget office has said, we cannot estimate a speech. we can only estimate a plan. house republicans have led with

a budget that dealt with the debt crisis that this president and the previous democratic congress has made far, far worse. what utter% of the problem is on the spending side. -- 100% of the problem is on the spending side. 100% of the solution has to come from there. >> the spending cuts have to be larger than the increase of the debt ceiling. there are no tax increases on the table. we have to have real controls in place to make sure this never happens again. real controls like a balanced budget amendment. but the fact is, house republicans have a plan. we passed our budget back in the spring. we outlined our priorities. where is the president's plan? when will he laid his cards on the table? this debt limit increase is his problem and it is time for him to lead by putting his plan on the table, something that the

congress can pass. >> the president has talked over the last day or so about the need to try and address the big problems which are the entitlement programs, specifically health care entitlements and their trajectories. you know, it is gratifying to see that the president joins us and feeling we have to do something about it. as the chairman just said, when chairman and sterling said we are the ones that came forward and said, we're going to put health care entitlements and our budget because this is how you get the fiscal house in order. i appreciate the president's saying that we need to do something about the long-term health of our country and entitlements. i appreciate the fact that he thinks that he has gotten prescriptions to do so. what i do not understand is why in the world with the president then tie that to tax increases? it is the right thing to do for the country, why is he tying it

into imposing greater cost on the people of this country at time they can lease deal with that? >> you know the point in time and where we are. this short time frame in half a year the republicans have been a majority has laid out a budget, it is actually on paper on how they can save the entitlement programs for future generations. we'll watch the jobless under this president and his administration continue to rise. this is a unique opportunity for us to correct the problem. as our speaker and leader go down and continue to work with the president to try to find a current form that we can change our spending habits, will find on the week of the 18th on this floor we will bring up the long term, a balanced budget amendment. you want to make sure we do not get into this problem again. 16 years ago, this country came

one vote shy of having a balanced budget the bank had that passed, we would not be where we are today. as you go to solve the problem, let's go to the future. every american realizes when you look to your family, it is not what you will become, it is what your children will become. this is our opportunity, our window as one nation, to solve the problem long term. >> our compass just -- our conference had that discussion about the future of america. we talked about our commitment to doing what is good and right for america. we believe this is a critical time, if that the debt we have taken on as a country is unsustainable, and that threatens our economic future, if it threatens those opportunities for our children and our grandchildren. now yesterday the president came out and said we needed to take a band-aid off and eat our ps, step up. every step of the way, this

majority has been a part of the solution. we have put forward our budget, we've been sitting at the table, we have been negotiating in good faith. i would say to the president right now, we need to put back on the table some of these items that he took off early on. he took off the balanced budget amendment early on. he ticked off changes to obamacare, the repeal to obamacare. we believe that they are part of the solution and we want to put them back on the table and move forward in a way that is actually going to make sure that america gets its fiscal house in order and back on track. >> mr. kantor. >> mr. speaker, you said that this is the time where we can least afford an increase in taxes. isn't it also a time when they can least afford a cut in social services? >> if we do not fix the entitlement programs, they will not exist. the trustees have made clear there are serious deficiencies

there and we have to make a decision that these programs important tens of millions of americans are there for the long term. >> president obama has put the qualified for medicare on the table. we heard reports of what sacred cows have republicans cut? what would you be willing to cut for these negotiations? >> i want to say again -- we all agreed that we have to do something about a long-term trajectory of the entitlement program and we have to fix them for the health of this country. it is unfathomable to me why our tosident thinks he has precondition tax increases. if that is what we -- he is looking for, we're not going there. this economy is ailing. we do not believe nor do i think the american people believe that raising taxes is the answer for

what is vexing most people in this country, a lack of jobs and growth. let's fix the entitlements like the president said, without raising taxes, then we can focus on the issues that he would like to focus on and we would like to focus on, our tax code. but why does he insist on raising taxes when we are trying to fix the health of this country? >> mr. speaker. >> later mcconnell says that he does not think that deal can be struck with the oval office. yesterday you were complimentary of the president. you agree with the leader on the other side? >> finding an agreement has been certainly elusive. he was doing a good job of representing our caucus and those discussions went on for seven weeks. i've been in conversation with the president for the last couple of months.

the president talks a good game, but when it comes time to actually putting these issues on the table, making decisions, he cannot quite pull the trigger. listen, i was born with the glass half full. i am the optimists and i will continue to be the optimists that we get to the right thing for the country. >> everyone in the room says it is important. the presence is that the republicans have to make concessions to move the ball for pre where are your concessions? >> i do not know why he believes there can be any easier for republicans than democrats to make these tough decisions in terms of reducing spending. washington has a spending problem. we do not have a revenue problem. thank you. >> our politics making it harder to raise a deal?

>> senate leaders also spoke with reporters about the debt negotiations prefers, majority leader harry reid, followed by republican leader mitch mcconnell. this is about 20 minutes. >> i feel so special that they let me go first. i think i like most people in washington were stunned to hear people say that the debt ceiling as president obama problem. this is a reversal from just a few months ago. the speaker said, we have to deal with the debt ceiling "as adults." he also said, whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have

obligations on our part. speaker boehner was right then and he is wrong now. that deficit is not just one party's problem. speaker boehner seems to have forgotten about the eight years when republicans turn the surplus into huge deficits with unpaid for taxes for millionaires, on paid wars, unpaid drug benefits, raising the debt ceiling was not just ronald reagan's problem when he raised to 18 times. ronald reagan raise the debt ceiling 18 times. that is why the speaker, john boehner, has voted for increasing the debt ceiling on many occasions. but most importantly, failing to raise the debt ceiling will be a major problem for the millions of americans who would not receive social security checks and for our troops who would not get paid. it would cause the stock market crash, draining american savings

and retirement funds. i watch secretary geithner third during the this -- during the course of these discuss and become more concerned and solemn each time we meet. he understands more than anyone else the issues facing our country. but i do agree with speaker boehner, what he said before, whether we like it or not, this is everyone's problem, not just a problem for a few to deal with. we have to deal with that like adults. acting like adults does not mean walking out of the room every time talks get serious. republicans have done that time and time again in the last few years. the first time was the conrad- gregg legislation were seven republicans walked away from it, number one. number two, the gang of six, which met in every hallway and room in the capitol complex over

months. they walked out of that. biden talks, eric kyle walked -- eric cantor walked out of those. we had the obama-boehner talks were they speaker said he was elected to do big things. excuse me. i guess he changed overnight and said he wanted no part of that. those talks are struggling along. boehner walked out on those talks also, in effect. the reality that we have to face is that we have to have shared sacrifices in whatever we do, whatever arrangement we make to raise the debt ceiling. walking out as a weakness we cannot afford.

it is a weakness that our economy and the middle-class cannot afford. i hope republicans will wake up to that reality and start leading instead of walking away. i received a call from senator mcconnell at 12:30 p.m. today. he has a proposal that some of you have already looked over, is that right? it is out, anyway. he will explain that to you. he will be out here shortly. i am not about to trash his proposal. it is something that i will look at intently. i think any new ideas i am willing to look at. i am not here to trash senator mcconnell's new proposal. i would be happy to look at it. i look forward to our meeting today. so do my utmost to take that

into consideration. >> as the president considered invoking the 14th amendment? >> know. -- no. until 1939, we never had a debt ceiling in this country. it started in 1939. we have raised it 84 times since 1939. 55 times has been with republican presidents. 34 times democratic president. whatever that matt is, that is how many times we erased it. most of that debt ceilings have been rick -- increased with republicans. now we have a democratic president and wish to play by the rules that we've established since 1939 and raise the debt ceiling. paul, i cannot expand because i

do not know too much about them. he taught for me for just a few minutes. as some of you know, i am not long on the telephone and neither is he. it did not take very long. he gave me the line of that and i'm happy to take a look at it. his chief of staff has briefed my chief of staff. i have not had time to talk to david krone it all. i am willing to look at this. i do not in any way disparage what senator mcconnell has come up with. we've had a number of meetings of the last few weeks talking about the concern we both have. i will be happy to give this his consideration -- his suggestion every consideration. >> are you ready to support a deal that changes social security and medicare? >> i am willing to look at medicare and medicaid that there is a grand bargain of more than $4 trillion, with significant

revenue raisers. i will not touch medicare and medicaid for some simple little deal where we get nothing that is beneficial to the country. medicare and medicaid should not be tampered with unless there is a grand bargain. pardon me? sam is medicare and medicaid. -- same as medicare and medicaid. the grand bargain, that's been trashed by cantor and kyl and i have not heard wild applause from anyone else in the republicans. boehner walked out, saying not spending time on the grand bargain. my caucus is anxious to find out where we are. we want to find out where we are, and it is extremely difficult. changes from day to day.

i am going back and my caucus has always been reasonable. we are team players. we are continuing to be that way. until we have something to team up with, there is nothing to even hold a hut along. -- huddle on. my only concern is why i am taking so many questions. the go-ahead. [inaudible] >> i have no conversation with senator mcconnell about that. a grand bargain, of course. ok, everybody, thanks. >> congressional leaders met with president obama at the white house for nearly two hours

to continue negotiations on the debt ceiling issue. news reports say that participants discuss senator mcconnell plus proposal to allow the president to raise the debt ceiling as a viable alternative. another meeting between the president congressional leaders is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. >> hello everyone. senator kyl and i will be going down to the white house shortly for our daily meeting to discuss whether or not we're going to be able to come together and take advantage of the opportunity presented to us by the president's request to raise the debt ceiling. one thing that i just had an opportunity to brief members on is the last choice option. if we are unable to come together, we think it is extremely important that the country reassure the markets

that the fault is not an option. and reassure social security recipients and families of military veterans that the fault is not an option. senate republicans will be on the floor next week advocating a balanced budget amendment to require us to live within our means. all 47 republicans are behind the proposal. we hope to attract enough democrats to pass it. if the white house talks lead not to a conclusion that we can go forward together to reduce spending, our single biggest problem, then what is the alternative? what i told my members is that we will have available a sort of back up plan that would operate as follows. i would advocate that we pass

legislation giving the president the authority to request of us an increase in the debt ceiling that would take us past the end of his term. that is what he has said and said he will not sign a debt ceiling that does not take us past the end of his term. in this legislation, if it were to pass, he would make three separate requests of us. the first request would be initiated by passing the legislation in the next few weeks. he would send up the request of us to raise the debt ceiling, probably by $700 billion. that would be subject to a resolution of disapproval. if your think ago an analogy, think of the congressional review act. the resolution of disapproval, it is passed, would then go to the president. he could sign it or he could

veto it. presumably he would veto it. if that were the case, that veto would be sustained by 33% plus one in either the house of the senate. the legislation would also require him to list -- it would not implement the cuts unilaterally, but would require him to list spending cuts he would make in the same amount as the debt ceiling request he is making of us. then there would be a second request based on his desire to get that debt ceiling in the fall. it would follow the same procedure. he would ask us to raise the debt ceiling, it is highly likely that both houses would consider and probably pass resolutions of disapproval.

if they pass, he would veto them. those resolutions would be sustained. his veto would be sustained by 33% plus one. what happened one more time in june. this is not my first choice. i had hoped all year long that the opportunity presented by his request of us to raise the debt ceiling would generate a bipartisan agreement that would begin to get our house in order. it would reduce spending. that may still happen. i still hope that it will. but we're certainly not going to send a signal to the markets and to the american people that the fault is an option. with that, let me turn the senator kyl. >> let me reiterate that it has been our hope and continues to be our hope that an agreement can be reached to ovoid post of the fault to a dutch -- to avoid

both the default and the situation the senator just described. i was quite hopeful that we could reach an agreement. our representative cantor decided we could not for debate at that level because the administration at the last meeting before then made it clear that even minor savings in health care programs like medicare, the kinds of things you can imagine correcting waste, fraud, and abuse, collecting money that needed to be collected or not paying out benefits that people are not eligible for, if those kinds of reforms, not fundamental reforms, even those kinds of things which we have agreed upon would require offsetting tax increases, or increases in taxes of the same amount. and that is when we decided that

it was not productive to continue at our level and the speaker of the house and the president been engaged. what the leader and i have concluded after the meeting on sunday and particularly yesterday is that the administration now is even walking away from agreements that we had tentatively made during the discussions with vice-president biden. to be clear, there was an understanding that there would be no agreement on anything until everything was agreed to. but it is also the case that we had agreed on a significant amount of savings, and the neighborhood of $500 billion, that all being equal, we could tell the american people could be saved. when the administration walk away from much of that yesterday afternoon, it became clear to us that we had better be thinking about an alternative in the event that we could not reach an agreement. that is the reason for our desire to be able to move

forward in the event that our discussions down at the white house do not bear fruit. >> a couple of questions and then we will head down to the white house. >> [unintelligible] >> i did not how to describe it other than how would operate. we would authorize him to request of us that we raise the debt ceiling by the amount he says that he needs, because he says he will not make multiple -- that he wants enough debt ceiling increase to take him through the end of his first term. >> he wants $2.4 trillion. >> he says he will not sign anything less than that. we take him at his word. the way that it works is that the legislation would authorize him to get to the amount he says

he needs, based on the advice of his secretary of treasury, and three charges. but i t -- three tranches. once the request is made, it would inappropriate -- it would be appropriate in other houses for a resolution of disapproval to be taken up on an expedited procedure. expedited in both house and the senate. if the resolution of disapproval achieve the majority, it would go down to him where he could either sign it or veto it. my presumption is that he would veto it. that veto would be sustained by 33% plus one in either of the

houses. that is the way it would work. >> it requires one-third of the legislative voting. >> as a practical matter. >> to clarify, the spending cuts use it would be the same as the request? >> we would not give him unilateral authority to cut spending on his own. but we would require him to specify cuts he would make if he could. commensurate with the amount that he is asking for. >> how do you ensure that revenue raisers are not part of the question that he would offer? >> because unspecified spending cuts. -- it specifies spending cuts. i've spoken about it with others. >> including the white house?

>> does it guarantee that you get your spending cuts are not? >> no, i it does not. as jon kyl has reported to you on the endless discussions that have gone on, we have become increasingly pessimistic that we will be able to reach an agreement with the only person in america and consign something into law, and that is the president of the united states. this is not my first choice. my first choice is to get an agreement with the president to significantly reduce spending. and we will continue to talk to them about that in the hopes that we can get there. that is what we think is the single biggest problem. >> what would you and republicans agreed to essentially raising the debt ceiling without getting our spending cuts? >> what we are not going to be of party to in the senate, i am pretty confident, it is the

fault for the only way you can get an agreement that actually achieve something is when the president signs it. to actually reduce spending requires not just republicans, but a democratic senate and a democratic president. and we're still hoping to achieve spending reductions that he will sign. that is our first choice. i am going to take one more than we have to go. >> the figure of $2.4 trillion, how does that work with the ones right now? >> i think that it gives the president two more opportunities to focus on this problem and maybe reach an agreement with us. i am not happy and i hope we do not have to go to this option. i still want to cut spending. i was hoping he wanted to cut spending without extracting as a condition for cutting spending what we believe our job-killing

tax increases. that is the discussion that continues. jon kyl are going down to it one more time this afternoon. whatever additional time there president requests, we hope and we will get somewhere. thanks a lot. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> senators will continue debating that debt and deficit next week while house members take up another spending bill dealing with energy and water programs. keep up to date with c-span's congressional chronicle, a comprehensive resource with video of every house and senate session, both records, the daily schedules, committee hearings,

and more information about your elected officials. it is that c-span.org/congress. next, look at the suggestion that president obama could invoke the 14th amendment to the constitution and declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional. from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. host: we will back with michael abramowicz here to talk about the 14th amendment section for the constitution. we showed it to you. professor, how did this provision end up in the constitution? what does it mean? guest: it came about during the civil war. they were borrowing by both sides, the north and south, to finance the war.

the winners of the war, the union, wanted to ensure that their debts would be paid off. in the confederate debt would not be paid off. initially, they put in a separate sentence from section four to indicate that the confederate debt would be repudiated. there was some concern that when the southern states would return to the union that they may try to repudiate the union debt as a political tactic. they wanted to make sure that did not happen. section four invalidates the confederate debt and insured that the union debt continued to be valid. it is also written a note like the rest of the 14th amendment, in general terms. it can apply about debts incurred before the civil war. but it refers to pensions. guest: one question people have

is what exactly does public that mean? when we think about what a public debt means, we think about bonds issued by the government. certainly, it is somewhat controversial that it is included within the public debt. one of the hard questions about the clause is what exactly also is included in the public debt. the fact that pensions are specifically mentioned in regards to the war itself, it suggests that at least government pensions but also be included in the public debt. some have argued that maybe social security is included. i think that is a bit of a stretch. social security is not quite the same as a pension. it is not guaranteed in the same way. the government has no obligation to pay social security. host: the debt ceiling is a statute written in law. what part of the constitution makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional? what is the reading?

guest: the argument, which is certainly controversial and hard to interpret, but the argument that it is unconstitutional is that if we hit the debt ceiling, as it seems that we might come and simply stop paying our bills, and among the bills that we fail to pay will be bills on the public debt, payments, for example, on bonds that the u.s. is obliged to pay. the argument that this is unconstitutional that this is a statute that will lead to a default, a failure to pay debt. that counts as a question of the dead. that is the word that the 14th amendment uses. host: if you agree with that, and you say that there are advocates to say that the president should be threatening this and he should ignore the debt ceiling statute and go ahead and pay our bills. where is the logical stopping point?

guest: that is certainly an argument used by those who argue that the public debt clause does not give the president a basis for ignoring the debt ceiling. their conclusion is what is unconstitutional is the fault. there are a lot of factors contributing, not just the debt ceiling. there is the tax level, revenues. they argue that if we really believe that the president can ignore the debt ceiling to make payments on the debt, maybe he can do more dramatic things. maybe he can just increase taxes. because we cannot default on the debt that he will announce an increase of taxes without legislative approval. host: as the supreme court ever weighed in on this part of the constitution? guest: there is one case from the early to mid 20th century. the supreme court did knowledge the existence of a clause. some people have made too much of it on both sides.

in the end, they found a way not to award damages. the most critical section seemed to a knowledge, of the very least, that this is a clause that had continuing relevance beyond the civil war and was not simply limited to debt that existed prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. host: congressman scott from south carolina says it would be an impeachable act for the president to find a way around congressional authority to raise the debt ceiling. guest: i think people who are concerned that the president may make this move and are concerned that may give the president more leverage in these discussions want to raise the stakes so the president does not do this. one can argue on what an impeachable offenses, high crime, or misdemeanor. even if one agrees if what the president is doing is unconstitutional. it would be unusual to say that

an interpretation of a law by the president would be an impeachable offense. that is whatever the congress says it is. host: the congressman referred to the part of the constitution that says only congress has the power to borrow money and the credit of the united states. guest: absolutely which forms a strong part of the argument for those who claim that the president cannot ignore the debt ceiling. ordinarily, we need to have legislation for the president to issue debt. those young the other side say there is one line out there that is creating a problem now. if we conclude that one line, that one statute will lead to an unconstitutional currents, we can say that is unconstitutional and still have the authority on all of the other statutes to have the issuance of debt, therefore the argument is he would be acting with congressional authority, simply ignoring the one line that would

most immediately lead to defaults. host: michael abramowicz is it our guest and we are talking about the 14th amendment, section four. here is the subject. if you want to call in, the numbers are on your screen. twitter.com/cspanwj or journal@c-span.org. we will take your phone calls about the 14th amendment and whether or not the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. a republican in dallas, texas. go ahead. caller: i think it is constitutional, but i have been trying to get through to you guys for two or three days about

being overextended. host: what is your question? caller: i have a statement and then a question, also. on the debt, i think there's a lot of things that can be done. i am 73 years old, but i think we should put social security, medicare, raising taxes, all of it should be on the table. it should be talked about. for instance, i think we should look back really history. if we look back to when carter was president, they raised the taxes on the top 2% of income earners and our economy was better then than it ever was. host: we will leave it there. he said the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. guest: used the word "unsustainable."

even apart from the debt ceiling, but our financial situation can lead to the accumulation of debt. i think that is one of the perils of the debt clause of the 14th amendment. arguably, in not only renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, but it also renders our entire earth is a situation in constitutional in the sense that, hypothetically, congress are not to pass any more laws that eventually medicare, for example, would explode that we would not have the money to pay for it in the very, very long term. we would default on the debt. it is an interesting double- edged sword. on the one hand, it says the failure to pay now would be unconstitutional, and on the other hand it says maybe we are already in an unconstitutional situation or in danger. host: the debt limit is the legal limit on borrowing by the federal government and includes

social security come medicare benefits, military salaries, etc. the debt limit has been raised. how many times since 1960? 78 times a permanent hourly raise, extend come or revise. 49 times under gop presidents, 29 times under democratic presidents. "i, new york, democratic column. go ahead -- mount sinai, n.y.. caller: this is tough for me to ask, because i am not educated to your degree, but the constitution seems to be manipulated by the multimillionaire's running the government and it has been shifting. it seems to me president obama, the first thing he did when he came into office was grant immunity to the telephone industry for spying on american. that seems to me like a violation of the constitution and i wondered what your thoughts on that was. up is down, down is up.

you have a society where young children cannot get jobs. newly graduated college graduates cannot get jobs, yet you want the senior citizens to work until they die so you do not have to pay them off on the ponzi scheme called social security. guest: 1. but the constitution is that there are debates among democrats, republicans, people of different assault -- the loss is about how we interpret the constitution. we have seen a lot of debates about whether the president is properly interpreting laws, properly interpreting the constitution. whatever one's view in general about the constitution and whether many provisions can be read clearly, i think that this is one that is, at least, somewhat difficult to interpret. i read a paper on this about 15 years ago, and i struggled a lot trying to figure of these questions. i think there is room for,

certainly, reasonable debate about this provision. we have seen reasonable debate by people on both sides that have taken the other position. one democrat is saying the president should not use this as a basis for ignoring the debt ceiling, and there are those on the other side as well. host: the white house has said that using the 14th amendment is off the table, but they have been encouraged by members of congress and other progressives to come at least, threaten the use of the 14th amendment. guest: and other things are allegedly off of the table as well like short-term deals but if we get within a few short hours, everything will be back on the table. host: farmington, maine, republican line. caller: i am an example. i am 62 years old. -- i am 67 years old and i retired at 62. i have collected more social

security payments that i ever paid in. it is a pyramid scheme for the ones on the top. i could also say that i am lazy american. i worked as little as possible, never made more than $20,000 annually. but i grow my own acute -- food, garden, hunt, own my house, but i was lazy. no one should pay for me. i have already cost more than i paid in. payback all the money that people have put in. pay them the money back with compound interest and get rid of social security. it is just stupid. host: carl, a democrat in chicago.

go ahead. caller: i would like to ask your guest a question. would you agree that the debt ceiling, this is that that we already have. it is nothing new, but just the current debt for things that we have already spent money on. host: hold on. let me have him answer that. guest: if we take out more debt to make payments on existing debt, then we have to make payments on that debt, too. caller: my question is this. the constitution has laid out responsibilities for all three branches of government. if one of those branches does not fulfill their obligation under the constitution, does that open the door for one of the other branches to step in and fill that void? guest: there is a lot of

controversy about this, as well. one question it leads to is whether the judiciary has a potential role in this. i think the general view is if president obama were to conclude that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional or unconstitutional as it is applied in the particular case of right after when a payment is necessary that the court would probably not reviewed that. they could review it later if people who have positions in credit default swaps filed a lawsuit, but possibly not. some people who hold that now could bring a lawsuit trying to get some kind of declaratory or injunctive relief on the court tried to get the court rather than president obama to decide that this is unconstitutional. it will be interesting to see if any lawsuits are filed over the next month. host: republican line from

michigan. welcome to the conversation. caller: the debt ceiling is merely like my credit card. you raise the level of spending and give me the right to spend more money. to pay our bills, all we need to do, really, is stop the spending we're predicting we will spend, like on welfare, medicaid, and government pensions and government salaries. they are all people that we, the taxpayers, are keeping in existence. host: michael abramowicz? guest: part of the political dynamic is, i think, but the besides want to avoid a default because it would become at the very least, expensive in that we would have larger interest rates. there is some asymmetry in how much each side cares. one small government republican,

many tend to believe that we take the position that we will just live within that that there will be some combination of spending increases, if you want to make the decision on a year- over-year basis that people tend to prefer spending cuts to tax increases. i think one part of the asymmetry in leverage that we have in this negotiation is that some republicans think it is bad, but not quite as bad as some democrats think it will be. i think everybody agrees it will be bad, but that is one reason that we see the president willing to offset a relatively large number of spending cuts relative to tax increases. host: off of twitter -- guest: going back in time, do

you think it is a good idea to have a provision in the constitution that we will not default? the answer for that is probably yes. when people think we will not default, we get better interest rates. one concern about the position that those who say that the debt ceiling is binding take is that people who think section four is not a big deal. they see section four as irrelevant. we no longer have the sense of that constitutional restriction on the fall that exists. that, combined with our commitment to not the fault followers our borrowing cost. host: is there a legal precedent? guest: >> not of the 14th amendment. that is why, i think,